Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29882105›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2019

Concomitant CIS on TURBT does not impact oncological outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy.

N Vasdev, H Zargar, J P Noël, R Veeratterapillay, A S Fairey, L S Mertens, C P Dinney, M C Mir, L M Krabbe, M S Cookson and 31 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of carcinomaInvestigative and clinical urology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

41 authors at 20 institutions in 6 countries.

N VasdevDepartment of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, SG1 4AB, UK. nikhil.vasdev@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3966-5734
H ZargarDepartment of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J P NoëlDepartment of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, SG1 4AB, UK.
R VeeratterapillayDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
A S FaireyUSC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
L S MertensDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C P DinneyDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
M C MirDepartment of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
L M KrabbeDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
M S CooksonDepartment of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
N E JacobsenUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
N M GandhiDepartment of Urology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J GriffinDepartment of Urology, Medical Center, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA.
J S MontgomeryDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
E Y YuDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
E XylinasDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
N J CampainDepartment of Surgery, Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.
W Kassouf(Division of Urology) Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
M A Dall'EraDepartment of Urology, Davis Medical Center, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
J A SeahPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
C E ErcoleDepartment of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S HorenblasDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S S SridharPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J S McGrathDepartment of Surgery, Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.
J AningDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
S F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
J L WrightDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
T M MorganDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
T J BivalacquaDepartment of Urology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
S NorthCross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
D A BarocasDepartment of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Y LotanDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
P GrivasDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
A J StephensonDepartment of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J B ShahDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
B W van RhijnDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S DaneshmandUSC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
P E SpiessDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
J M HolzbeierleinDepartment of Urology, Medical Center, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA.
A ThorpeDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
P C BlackDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AURoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity of Washington · USCornell University · USFreeman Hospital · GBJohns Hopkins University · USMichigan Medicine · USPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USUniversity of Southern California · USMcGill University Health Centre · CAMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of California Davis Medical Center · USUniversity of Oklahoma · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle invasive bladder cancer improves all-cause and cancer specific survival. We aimed to evaluate whether the detection of carcinoma in situ (CIS) at the time of initial transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) has an oncological impact on the response to NAC prior to radical cystectomy. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients were identified retrospectively from 19 centers who received at least three cycles of NAC or induction chemotherapy for cT2-T4aN0-3M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder followed by radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2013. The primary and secondary outcomes were pathological response and overall survival, respectively. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the independent predictive value of CIS on these outcomes.

resultsOf 1213 patients included in the analysis, 21.8% had concomitant CIS. Baseline clinical and pathologic characteristics of the 'CIS' versus 'no-CIS' groups were similar. The pathological response did not differ between the two arms when response was defined as pT0N0 (17.9% with CIS vs 21.9% without CIS; p = 0.16) which may indicate that patients with CIS may be less sensitive to NAC or ≤ pT1N0 (42.8% with CIS vs 37.8% without CIS; p = 0.15). On Cox regression model for overall survival for the cN0 cohort, the presence of CIS was not associated with survival (HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.63-1.18; p = 0.35). The presence of LVI (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96; p = 0.04), hydronephrosis (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23-2.16; p = 0.001) and use of chemotherapy other than ddMVAC (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.94; p = 0.03) were associated with shorter overall survival. For the whole cohort, the presence of CIS was also not associated with survival (HR 1.05 (95% CI 0.82-1.35; p = 0.70).

conclusionIn this multicenter, real-world cohort, CIS status at TURBT did not affect pathologic response to neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy. This study is limited by its retrospective nature as well as variability in chemotherapy regimens and surveillance regimens.

Indexed as

CystectomyInduction ChemotherapyNeoadjuvant TherapyAgedAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma in SituCisplatinFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinBladder cancerCarcinoma insituNeoadjuvant chemotherapyRadical cystectomy

Identifiers

PMID29882105
OpenAlexW2805956893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.